Samantha P. Watson v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2093
SAMANTHA P. WATSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Kimberly A. Swank,
Magistrate Judge. (7:13-cv-00212-KS)
Submitted: August 31, 2015 Decided: September 9, 2015
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, R.A.
Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, David N. Mervis,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Samantha P. Watson appeals the district court’s order
affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance
benefits. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record
on appeal and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm
substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.
Watson v. Colvin, No. 7:13-cv-00212-KS (E.D.N.C. Sept. 18,
2014); see Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 566 (4th Cir. 2006)
(permitting vocational expert testimony “based upon a
consideration of all other evidence in the record” and “in
response to proper hypothetical questions which fairly set out
all of claimant’s impairments” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 659 (4th Cir.
2005) (recognizing hypothetical must include only impairments
supported by substantial evidence). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* Watson has waived appellate review of her claims under
Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015). See In re Under
Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (recognizing issues
raised for first time on appeal generally will not be
considered); Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d 597,
605-06 (4th Cir. 1999) (describing limitations on exception
based on intervening change in law).

-- 2 of 2 --